I have a feeling the upcoming D7200 will be as close as we'll get to a proper D300s replacement.

To be fair the D7100 is almost there, just needs better controls and a buffer with more capacity than a gnats knackers. The AF performance is already good and the build is very nearly that of a pro body.

I certainly see the opportunity for a pro level DX camera - pro level in terms of build quality, buffer, frame rate, and AF system. But at this point I don't expect to see it. I expect to see a mirrorless DX or FX option rather than a late entry DX with limited life. A high end mirrorless with a pro or prosumer form factor, killer frame rate, and big buffer could be very interesting. The AF system is a challenge for mirrorless, but it is pretty good already.

I see a camera body as needing a 3-4 year life. I think it's just too late for a pro level DX to have 3-4 years left before mirrorless overtakes it.

Interests:I enjoy photography(of course)and I'm a gadget freak, especially if it can be used in photography.

Posted 09 January 2015 - 06:52 PM

I certainly see the opportunity for a pro level DX camera - pro level in terms of build quality, buffer, frame rate, and AF system. But at this point I don't expect to see it. I expect to see a mirrorless DX or FX option rather than a late entry DX with limited life. A high end mirrorless with a pro or prosumer form factor, killer frame rate, and big buffer could be very interesting. The AF system is a challenge for mirrorless, but it is pretty good already.

I see a camera body as needing a 3-4 year life. I think it's just too late for a pro level DX to have 3-4 years left before mirrorless overtakes it.

Yes sadly it may be too late for DX, at least at the pro level. About mirrorless, I sold my Sony NEX-5n because it didn't have a view finder. My new Sony SLT A77II has an electronic VF, it's not optical, but at least it has some kind of VF. About full frame, I don't want it. Don't like the higher cost of the bodies and for macro and wildlife the crop factor of DX/APS-C is the best choice, at least for me. Other than better high ISO performance in low light, I really don't see a need for FX. I think many photogs are going FX because it's something new and exciting to them(having the latest and greatest, keeping up with the Jones', that sort of thing). I guess things in this hobby change too fast for me. It took me a few years to warm up the the DX size sensor. Now I love it, but full frame is "in" and DX is "out".

So where did they go wrong and not listen to their customer base when they updated the D3 series to the D4?

Where would you say the problem lies in the D800 series - which does seem very popular - with its superb build, excellent AF, high resolution (Sony) sensor, huge dynamic range and for the pixel density frankly staggering signal to noise ratio?

The Df is (expensive I'll grant) a stand alone product which doesn't really follow on or fit in so why other than listening to customers did Nikon make such a thing?

Customers wanted a lower price point for getting a FX body so Nikon made the D610 which has a superb sensor (so you get the quality) and is only missing a few features to keep the price down - which is kind of the whole point.

Yes I'll agree Nikon need a mirrorless system other than the 1 Series and I'll also agree that their consumer cameras are still a bit lacking in many modern conveniences but Nikon have always been a pro lead company and to that sector they do tend to listen. I personally think there is room for a proper high end DX body but unfortunately consumers have got it into their heads that FX is the second coming that a bigger sensor will transport their very souls to a higher plane of existence and regardless of what they shoot, what they actually need and even a bit of sound logical reasoning they flay themselves senseless trying to achieve a nirvana that may not actually end up being their hoped for utopia.

Interests:Event photography, candids, getting photos of people at their best.

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:47 AM

I went FX because I've got four 35mm bodies and a bunch of FX lenses. Also because all my DX lenses save one were destroyed when the D70 kit went into the water. I still shoot DX with the D1x, though almost always with FX lenses.

The FX bodies can do DX and automatically default to DX when a DX lens is mounted -- the D610 produces about a 10mp DX image. Remember when the D200 (Der 200 - sorry Jazzer) was released we were all ga-ga over that resolution??

I'd love to see a D400-esque body for those with a stable of DX glass, but despite the clamoring from a relatively small number of enthusiasts here, have you considered that the marketing gurus at Nikon have, after listening to the customer base AND analyzing the sales data, concluded that they'd lose money on such a product?? Maybe the market for a pro DX camera just isn't there.

Just my 2 x 10e-8 megabucks...

Edited by justshootit, 10 January 2015 - 09:56 AM.

Don
==========================================================
Digital: D610 backed up by a D1x. Quoted from an unknown source by a fellow planeteer, "Never get rid of a working D1x." I've got to agree.

Film: N90s, F3, F100, F4s, C330s. A few lenses.

Why film photography? I like shooting with the equipment. 6x6 Velvia slides from a C330 have an appeal all their own.

Why automated 35mm/Digital cameras? Event photography is about capturing moments. It often requires quick response. Well done automaton can be your friend or your enemy. It all depends on knowing what it can and can't do. "A man's got to know his (camera's) limitations." paraphrasing Dirty Harry...

Interests:Event photography, candids, getting photos of people at their best.

Posted 10 January 2015 - 10:04 AM

PS: I will grant you all, though, that not putting a 3x deeper buffer in the D7200 was an irritating, frustrating, "bag it, I'd rather shoot Canon" move on Nikon's part. If they'd rethink that and put a D4 sized buffer in that camera, we'd have our semi-pro DX body.

Don
==========================================================
Digital: D610 backed up by a D1x. Quoted from an unknown source by a fellow planeteer, "Never get rid of a working D1x." I've got to agree.

Film: N90s, F3, F100, F4s, C330s. A few lenses.

Why film photography? I like shooting with the equipment. 6x6 Velvia slides from a C330 have an appeal all their own.

Why automated 35mm/Digital cameras? Event photography is about capturing moments. It often requires quick response. Well done automaton can be your friend or your enemy. It all depends on knowing what it can and can't do. "A man's got to know his (camera's) limitations." paraphrasing Dirty Harry...

Interests:I enjoy photography(of course)and I'm a gadget freak, especially if it can be used in photography.

Posted 10 January 2015 - 12:56 PM

The FX bodies can do DX and automatically default to DX when a DX lens is mounted -- the D610 produces about a 10mp DX image. Remember when the D200 (Der 200 - sorry Jazzer) was released we were all ga-ga over that resolution??

.

Yes you can use DX crop mode on an FX body but you're paying more for it and the DX part of the sensor is not that many pixels. I'd be paying more to get less. And if you wanna use the whole sensor you'd have to replace the 300mm lens with a 500 to get roughly the same crop. And some 500mm lenses cost more than a used car. It's kinda like buying a new car today. Nowadays all of them have automatic transmissions, navi system, power windows and locks.... So if I wanted to buy a new car, I'd have to pay thousands for a bunch of stuff I don't want or need.

Is there alot more profit in FX bodies for the manufacturers? If so, I'm afraid eventually they're all gonna "force" us into it.

What I mean is, why is there a perceived need for a label of 'pro' body?

Does the camera do what you need it to do, and produce images that are of the quality you require? If the answer is yes, then the camera is suitable for your purposes. It doesn't matter if its a 'pro' body or a 'pro' lens in its advertising. It is what you do with whatever you have that counts.

Only other photographer care what equipment you used, the rest of the world are just enjoying the images.

This was posted in 2014. The conventional thought process at the time was around a successor to the D300s. That's in the "prosumer" category, but certainly is used by pros. The D500 has fit the criteria of a replacement for a D300s and provides a number of features that are the best in the DX lineup.

If your criteria for a pro body is a D2x successor, that's a long time ago and not likely. The D2x was released more than 10 years ago - and in fact there were only two flagship camera series released as DX. For most pros, FX has advantages that make it the camera of choice.

The D500 has been very popular to date. It's a good complement to my FX primary camera. It's also the only DX camera I own. But that's me.

Interests:Event photography, candids, getting photos of people at their best.

Posted 13 July 2016 - 09:45 PM

Unless you're going to be shooting a lot of high ISO stuff or you need somewhat shallower DOF at a given aperture, there's really not enough difference to worry about. When my D70 died, I got FX (D610) because I have a lot of full frame glass from the film days. If I had mostly DX glass, I'd have been just as happy with a D7200. My wife gets superb images from her D3200 and I know a local pro who shoots a D3200 as well.

As far as the resolution of FX with DX glass, plenty of people still use and love the D2x - a 12 MP camera. The D600 series and D750 give a 10 MP image in DX mode and the D800 series gives a 15 MP image. So you can produce a very nice image with a DX lens on a modern FX body. It may not enlarge to 20"x30" as well as a full frame image from the same camera, but it'll be plenty good for the majority of uses.

Don
==========================================================
Digital: D610 backed up by a D1x. Quoted from an unknown source by a fellow planeteer, "Never get rid of a working D1x." I've got to agree.

Film: N90s, F3, F100, F4s, C330s. A few lenses.

Why film photography? I like shooting with the equipment. 6x6 Velvia slides from a C330 have an appeal all their own.

Why automated 35mm/Digital cameras? Event photography is about capturing moments. It often requires quick response. Well done automaton can be your friend or your enemy. It all depends on knowing what it can and can't do. "A man's got to know his (camera's) limitations." paraphrasing Dirty Harry...

What I mean is, why is there a perceived need for a label of 'pro' body?

Does the camera do what you need it to do, and produce images that are of the quality you require? If the answer is yes, then the camera is suitable for your purposes. It doesn't matter if its a 'pro' body or a 'pro' lens in its advertising. It is what you do with whatever you have that counts.

Only other photographer care what equipment you used, the rest of the world are just enjoying the images.

Because a pro body is nothing at all like the rest of the range so manufacturers use the badge as a quick guide when people are looking for a certain level of body and to specifically differentiate them from the other bodies. I'm not pointing a finger but in general you tend to find people who don't believe or argue against the need for a pro badge have never used a pro body so simply don't understand just how massively different they are or simply don't need one and are defending their lesser machine.

If you are a full-time pro then in most cases you will need a pro body simply for the amount of daily abuse it can take without missing a beat. Can a basic body deliver outstanding images - yes of course it can but thats missing the point somewhat. Often its not even about the image quality as in many cases the lower bodies have that its an entire package of features, control layout, connectivity and titanic build.

Look at it this way:

If you had paid huge sums of money a for a location, models, MUA's, assistants, you'd hired extra equipment, paid your insurances and had a client standing by would you rather rely on a D5500 or a D810?

Lenses by the way are a different kettle of fish entirely - it is a VERY rare basic range lens that can perform to the level of a pro designated variant.

It's fun going back and looking at this thread from the beginning. There were a lot of accurate comments about features like build, buffer, frame rate and improved AF (all delivered with the D500). And there were lots of comments about why a pro level DX camera would never happen and we'd move directly to mirrorless, it's too late for a pro DX DSLR, etc.

Now what we really need is some pro level DX lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 was excellent in it's day, but a small, fast normal zoom would be nice. The 16-80 is good, but it's a variable aperture lens providing f/4 at the longer end.